Racism in the pursuit of 'diversity'

The Origonian ^ | 5/12/02 | David Reinhard

[Jakarta ex-pat]

You want to go to the University of Michigan, and you're a minority applicant. Ka-ching. You automatically receive an extra 20 points on your application.

You want to attend the University of Michigan Law School, and you're a minority applicant. Ka-ching. It doesn't matter if your qualifications are low compared with other applicants. Your race or ethnicity can land you a spot.

A couple of points are worth noting here. First, Michigan admits it engages in such race-based discrimination. There's nothing coy or concealed about its affirmative action admissions process. The university acknowledges further that its race-based discrimination isn't a way to make up for any past discrimination.

No, Michigan argues that raw discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity is just dandy -- not only constitutional but indispensable -- simply to promote its brand of "diversity."

And it's the sheer brazenness of the university's affirmative-action claims that makes the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to take up the two Michigan cases so constitutionally fraught. We're here, we're discriminating on the basis of race, get used to it, Michigan is saying. Now, we'll see what sayeth the Supreme Court and Constitution.

"This is a story that begins with Brown v. Board of Education -- the whole effort to really try to achieve an integrated society and get the full benefits of racial diversity in America," Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger, who was president of Michigan when the new cases began, pronounced earlier this week.

What self-righteous silliness.

First, there is no evidence that ending race preferences will lead to the "resegregation" of the nation's institutions of higher education. It didn't happen in California or Texas.

Second, there is no evidence to support the University of Michigan's claim that racial diversity benefits all students, red and yellow, black and white. Oh, the university ordered up a study to make this case, but it was never submitted for peer review and came in for a drubbing at the hands of even affirmative-action buffs. Indeed, economists Harry Holzer and David Newmark concluded, in the Fall 2000 Journal of Economic Literature: "There is no evidence of the positive (or negative) effects of a diverse student body on educational quality."

And how exactly do Michigan's racial preferences fulfill Brown v. the Board of Education? Bollinger and Michigan see current race-based discrimination as an extension of the 1954 case. In fact, Michigan's racial preferences would seem anathema to the Brown decision. It signaled an end to the right of educational institutions to discriminate on the basis of race in their enrollment decisions. After all, the Topeka Board of Education was doing just that. It was practicing race-based discrimination. So is Michigan.

Is Michigan's discrimination less odious because Bollinger and company think it's for a worthy cause? Well, Topeka school leaders a half-century ago believed they were discriminating on racial grounds for a worthy cause. They, too, were operating in what they deemed the best interests of their institution.

But an institution's needs -- for racial diversity or racial uniformity -- shouldn't trump an individual's right to equal treatment. Not under our Constitution or creed. Such a race-based system punishes individuals for being people of the wrong color.

Ah, but diversity is such a sweet concept. Yes, in many ways it is, and the more the merrier. Greater ideological diversity on America's campuses would be a nice start. But think of all that's implicit in Michigan's bid to promote racial diversity to achieve "viewpoint diversity." It assumes that all African Americans, Hispanics or whatever think alike. How's that for stereotyping? I guess this is OK if the Archie Bunkers hold doctorates.

The child of Jesse Jackson or Oprah receives an extra 20 points on an application just for being black. And a poor white kid whose single mom takes the early bus to work receives no such break. There's something repugnant -- unAmerican even -- about this. I think it's called judging people by the color of their skin, not the content of their character.

[azhenfud]

"Things are more like they are now than they've ever been." -- Gerald Ford --

[Blue Screen of Death]

Prediction... The SCOTUS will rule against Affirmative Action and universities will figure out a way to continue discriminating some other way. Diversity is more important than little things like the law of the land.

[Hodar]

My questions concerning issues like this are:

1) Are minorities intellectually inferior, such that they cannot compete without this help?

2) Are minorities inherently lazy, such that they cannot compete without this help?

3) Why do members of the Asian community, who often did not speak english when they came to this country, succeed where other minorities who have been in the USA for generations have consistently failed?

If the minorities who benefit from these policies would simply (and proudly) declare that they are inferior; one could at least understand why the policies exist. I, for one, would feel insulted if someone would grant me this benefit, based on race alone.

[Bogolyubski]

Your prediction is most likely correct. Racial preferences (i.e. Affirmative Action) were outlawed in California via Prop. 209 a couple of years ago but the universities there have already constructed a workaround based on "hardship."

[Concerned]

HODAR WROTE: "I, for one, would feel insulted if someone would grant me this benefit, based on race alone."

BINGO! And I think that way down, they too feel that way and are tired of the RATS, in effect, portraying them as idiots to be taken for granted for their votes.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"First, there is no evidence that ending race preferences will lead to the "resegregation" of the nation's institutions of higher education. It didn't happen in California or Texas."

This brings up the interesting point that the newly-covert racism preferences being used on an ad-hoc basis by leftist admissions officers in those states are inflating minority numbers. This is a good thing, because it can honestly be argued that eliminating preferences does not reduce minority levels as greatly as feared.

(Then, the ad-hoc racism can be dealt with later.)

[Warren]

They may deep be tired of the RATS portraying them as needing help, but they still accept the help and scream bloody murder if anyone complains.

[Joe Hadenuf]

You want to go to the University of California, and you're a minority applicant. Ka-ching. You automatically receive an extra 20 points on your application.

And the typical response would be, "I hope California fall in the ocean".

If you folks in Michigan start fleeing, don't come to California. Try Idaho.

[pabianice]

The really big event is just 10-20 years away. By that time, genetic research and mapping will have told us precisely how each race stacks-up against the others in terms of intelligence, character, potential for learning, liklihood of criminal behavior, etc. That's when it will REALLY hit the fan.

[Tacis]

Who would rely on a black graduate of this law school? You know, no liberal professor would ever take remedial action. If his only significant capability when admitted was his race, what would change by graduation? With the black enititlement mentality, why would he try to learn anything while in school, he is owed the degree? Why isn't every black who has achieved some status perceived as an affirmative action product?

There are so many capable blacks, folks who have no trouble making it on their own that it's almost racist for white liberals to claim that blacks need these crutches. It is as racist as Belafonte claiming that Powell and Rice are less than adequate because they do not claim to believe this "we are not equal and demand special credit" silliness.

Why don't we have affirmative action suits from whites against the NFL and NBA? Affirmative action in graduate schools admissions does nothing but "give" black candidates soemthing they haven't earned, discredits the capability of black graduates and dilutes the value of all degrees from that school.

[TSgt]

Something like that has already occurred.

Ever hear of the book:

"The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life?"

[MEGoody]

"Diversity is more important than little things like the law of the land."

Yes, indeed, except their definition of diversity is extremely narrow.

[Mark17]

3) Why do members of the Asian community, who often did not speak english when they came to this country, succeed where other minorities who have been in the USA for generations have consistently failed?

I don't know, motivation maybe?

[Jakarta ex-pat]

Intelligence?

[Mark17]

You have freep mail.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"If his only significant capability when admitted was his race, what would change by graduation?"

You assume that they have a respectable graduation rate.

In fact, too many of these talented black students who would have prospered at a next-tier school in the middle of the class end up dropping out, either due to the too-stiff competition, too-rigorous curriculum, or dispiriting knowledge that they are at the bottom of the class, out of their league.

The preferences can actually harm the community, perpetuating underrepresentation of blacks in the professions. And ensuring prosperity for the race hustlers.